Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

4 New Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus

For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.

Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection

The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]

N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?

Multiple Independent Sources

When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).

In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.

Extremely Early Testimony

The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Unique Early Eschatological Christology

Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.

Conclusion

Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Notes

[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.

[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.

[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2^nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.

[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2^nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.

[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.

[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.

[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS

April 27, 2022/by Guest

“Being Good” Isn’t Enough For Salvation

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The point of Christian apologetics is to “defend” the faith, and the point of the faith is to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. Salvation, naturally enough, means saving, and a person only needs saving when he is in some peril. But ask many people today what peril they are in: they may tell you they’re worried about the state of the economy or inflation, or about the rising crime rates across the country, or about difficulties they might be having at home. It’s doubtful that they will throw in that they’re also concerned about the ultimate destiny of their soul, or that they wish they could be sure that they will spend eternity in God’s presence in the company of those they have loved here.

Why is that? Why are so many people today so confident that their soul does not need salvation? Though there are an increasing number of atheists, most people still recognize that there is a God who created them and all there is around us. Nonetheless, though fallen away from the faith they once knew, they do not seem worried about how God will one day judge them. Most often, if pressed, the modern secularist will provide a variation of: “Look, I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly. There’s nothing for me to be worried about.”

There are dozens of definitions of “good” but for our purposes, let’s assume that most people mean “good” as something along the lines of “morally excellent, virtuous or righteous.” God presumably will tally all the morally excellent, virtuous or righteous deeds they have done in their lives, and this will tip the “scales of justice” in favor of entry into heaven.

But this analogy, upon reflection, actually provides scant reassurance. After all, a scale is only used if there is something to be placed on the other side, something against which the one side is weighed or measured. If a “good“ deed tips the balance in one direction, then failing to perform such a deed, or worse yet acting in ways that are decidedly not good, moves the needle in the other direction. Most people would agree that acting in a “selfish“ manner, i.e. making decisions that benefit only oneself and not the others in one‘s life, is not a “good“ way to act. But selfishness is part of the human condition. Parents see it in their young children, and most parents try to move children away from selfishness into more altruistic types of behavior. Add to that the times that we are not simply failing to do good but are intentionally doing wrong, without caring about the harm our actions may bring to others. Seen from this perspective, we have a real problem, for God is all-seeing and all-knowing. He lives eternally and sees all that we have ever thought or done; the things we may view as in our distant past remain in his eternal present. For anyone engaging in a clear-eyed and rational assessment of the situation, there is real cause to be concerned that the scale upon which we are being measured will quickly tip against us.

Let’s approach this with a modern example. Repeated studies tell us that an increasing percentage of the American population is overweight or obese. Health experts consistently warn of the many negative consequences that can attach to excessive weight, ranging from greater risk of serious health consequences from Covid to various types of illnesses and cancers. While some involuntary factors may contribute to obesity, this unhealthy lifestyle does still involve the repeated choice to eat to excess. I suspect no one starts out in life wanting to tip the scales against himself by choosing gluttony as a lifestyle. More likely, the end result is the product of many small decisions, played out repeatedly over the course of time. Indeed, it is difficult to fight the human capacity for self-deception. We ignore the evidence of our eyes, and of the scale, as we continue to feel “pretty good” about ourselves and the choices we make. We applaud ourselves for skipping dessert or starting a diet, all the while ignoring the bulging beltline that displays the direction in which the scale is tilting.

So too, it seems, with eternal things. We applaud ourselves for donating to charity, or volunteering at the soup kitchen. We give ourselves a pat on the back for each time we keep our temper in check. We laud ourselves for our sense of tolerance and enlightened thinking and surround ourselves with people who feel and think the same. In so doing, we focus only on the one side of the scale, neglecting to remember the many times we fell short of the mark…or worse, engaged in intentional bad behavior.

Banking on our ability to keep the scale tipped in our favor – on the side of “good” outweighing bad – simply fails to consider how a perfect God views our behavior. Like battling obesity through diet and exercise, the struggle is incremental. We may in fact do much that is good and worthy of praise. But like the defendant in an earthly court, the misdeed that has brought him before the court isn’t ignored when the defendant seeks to impress the judge with the many good deeds he has performed in his life. The point of the sentencing, on a finding of guilt, is to attach the appropriate consequence to the misbehavior in question. Standing before a perfect God and asking him to forget our misdeeds because we also happened to have done some good in our lives will be similarly unavailing. How does one go about impressing a judge who has both set the standard of perfection and is Himself perfect in every conceivable way?

The good news of course is that the One who made the scale, and who will do the judging, has given us the means to put the scale back in balance. This first requires us to see ourselves clearly enough to accept that we cannot meet God’s standard of perfection on our own. When Jesus took our sins upon himself on that cross two thousand years ago, he provided the means for us to become reconciled with God, to be “perfected” so that we can be ready and worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect being. It is Jesus who does the work of salvation, not us and our meager efforts at being “good.”

Trying to do good is a laudable goal. Sadly, too often today it is in short supply. But doing “good” isn’t going to be enough when that someday comes, as it will for each of us, that we meet our Maker.

Why Am I A “Sinner” And Why Do I Need To Be Forgiven?

Apologetics for Parents, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Here’s a question I got recently: “It has always bothered me that I am a sinful human. None of my good efforts, leading a good life can deter sin. I was born with sin and I have to be forgiven? I don’t get that. Why am I a ‘sinner’ and why do I need to be forgiven?” This is a difficult question to answer, especially when it comes from a genuine, good-hearted person. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a “sinner.” For the most part, all of us try to be kind, nice, and loving. We’re not serial killers, or bank robbers, or child molesters, or even shady politicians. It seems unfair to call someone a sinner — especially when you also seem to be saying that they were born to be that way.

There is a unique Christian solution to this dilemma. I’d like to offer three things to keep in mind when you think about it:

Exchange the Word “Sinner” with “Rebel”

I think part of the problem is that “sin” is a religiously loaded word. Yes, we are sinners, but the word conjures images of angry preachers demeaning our character and yelling from the pulpit that we need to “repent!” It all just sounds so judgmental and archaic. But the simple fact is that every one of us has done wrong things, no matter how small we think they are. We have all lied, cheated, stolen things, or mistreated other people. We have all been angry, jealous, or unfair to someone in our lives. It’s part of being human. So, if we have all done these things, it’s not unfair to acknowledge it. It’s just an observation about our common human nature.

The problem is that every time we do one of these things, we are violating an objective standard of moral goodness that we all recognize and should be trying to live our lives by. All of us realize this But, we do these kinds of things anyway. Every single human being who has ever lived is therefore a rebel in the same way. So, exchange the word “sinner” with “rebel.” Both are accurate, but rebel sounds less judgmental.

Use a Different Standard for Comparison

Instead of comparing ourselves to the bad actors in the world and seeing ourselves as pretty decent folks, we need to measure our rebellious actions against the standard we are actually violating. That standard is the perfect moral character of God. Nobody likes being told they’re a “sinner,” but when we change our mindset to realize our rebellion is against a perfect God, it puts things in a different perspective.

Imagine an artist’s masterpiece with a tiny flaw. Someone erases an eyeball on the Mona Lisa or vandalizes it with a single drop of bright yellow paint. Yes, the flaw is tiny. But no matter how small it is, you can’t help but see it. A tiny corruption in a masterpiece ruins the whole thing.

The Unique Christian Solution

If the standard is perfection, then any violation of that standard, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, creates an infinite separation between us and that perfection. Think of it as an infinitely wide canyon where we are on one side and God is on the other. Every religion offers a solution to crossing the divide, but Christianity’s solution is unique.

There are three possible responses to bridging the canyon we create when we rebel against God’s perfect moral standard.

Pretend the bridge isn’t there. This is basically the solution of the eastern and new age religions. People, and pain, and suffering, and rebellion are all just illusions. There is no need to build a bridge across a divide that doesn’t even exist. But it does make one wonder why we all seem to recognize our rebellious behavior if it’s just an illusion.
We can build the bridge ourselves. This is the idea that we can fix the mend by doing nice things to make up for the bad stuff we’ve done. Some call this a “works-based” theology, where we “work” our way back into God’s good graces. This is the solution offered by every other theistic religion (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism etc.). The problem with that is that the gap we’re tying to mend is infinite. We can work all we want but no human being is going to be able to build a bridge across an infinitely wide chasm.
God can build the bridge for us. What makes Christianity unique is that we don’t have to build the bridge. God builds it for us. It was the reason he came to Earth. He is the bridge between God and man. His suffering and death on the cross was the infinite payment required to make up for our rebellion. His resurrection sealed the deal.

All we have to do is acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that we are all rebels when we compare ourselves to the proper standard — then let God build us a bridge.

Norman L. Geisler: A Student’s Tribute

Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

I first heard about Dr. Norman L. Geisler when I was in high school. I bought his When Skeptics Ask. I glossed over it but thought it was beyond me. During my senior year of college, my wife and I decided to move back to my native Charlotte after graduation and study apologetics under Dr. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Before making the move, we visited the seminary. While sitting in the registrar’s office, Dr. Geisler walked by, and I was star struck. After the tour, Dr. Doug Potter introduced us to Dr. Geisler. I was so nervous. He asked if we had lunch plans. I got even more nervous. We said no, and he asked if we would have lunch with him. Of course, we said yes. On the way out of the building he asked if I would drive as his car was in the shop. Even more nervous.

We went to a place called Wolfgang Puck (which is no longer there). I asked what he recommended and he said the butternut squash soup. So, I got that. Let me tell you, it was awful! Between the nervousness and the bad taste, I just couldn’t eat. However, after a while my nerves calmed, and he noticed I wasn’t eating. He asked if I didn’t like the soup, and I replied no (feeling badly). “Here, have some of my sandwich,” he said. Norman Geisler gave me half of his sandwich! I felt so bad. However, that is the kind of man he was. To be such a rock star in the world of evangelical apologetics, philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, he was such a humble man. That was something that I would notice for years to come.

As a student I took several classes from him, including Intro to Apologetics, several theology courses, a philosophy course, and the Problem of Evil. Of course, everyone knows he was a scholarly man. With over 100 books to his name, and I don’t know how many articles and presentations, he had a profound impact on the evangelical community. In fact, his impact was felt in many more circles than that. I have heard several people outside of evangelicalism, such as Ed Feser, and even outside of Christianity, such as Michael Ruse, praise him for his scholarship and care.

I have learned many things from Dr. Geisler. Having read several of his books, taken several classes, and co-taught with him, several characteristics stick out to me.

First, he was as logical as Spock. He could take a complicated argument (or an incoherent mess), and explain it to anyone in the most logical fashion, removing all unnecessary emotion. This is extremely important in issues of philosophy and apologetics when an issue can be convoluted or overly emotional. Second, he was a wizard at debating. Having seen several of his debates and discussions with unbelievers, he was a force to be reckoned with. Third, he was very caring of his students. He went out of his way to help however he could. He didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk. I remember him taking time to help me with my application to be an Air Force chaplain. I had to answer questions that I didn’t even understand what was being asked, let alone how to answer. He was patient and helpful. My wife was always amazed at how he remembered her name with over 50 students in a class and often asked for updates since the last time he had chatted with her even if it had been months prior. Fourth, and this is possibly what he is known best for, he was a bulldog at safeguarding evangelical issues such as inerrancy, the classical view of God, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

His grace as a teacher didn’t stop with him being my professor. I was fortunate and honored to be able to teach a few classes with him. He treated me with grace and respect, even though I was very much his weaker assistant professor. He was never too busy to stop and say hello and see how things were going.

We can take the following lessons from our fellow servant of Christ: Be knowledgeable Christians. We have to know what we believe and why, and be prepared to defend it. We have to understand our interlocutor’s argument if we want to evaluate it. We have to make the Bible and devotion to Christ our first and foremost goal in life. It is not simply about winning arguments; it is about winning people for Jesus. Last, we have to be willing to serve others. We must live the servant life, as Christ and Dr. Geisler did.

Why Good Friday is the Best News Ever

Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Despite intense personal and political division, we all agree on one thing: something is terribly wrong with this world. Pain, suffering, injustice, and death affect us all at some point because we live in a broken world. And we live in a broken world because we are all personally broken.

Who hasn’t committed any moral wrongs? (If you claim you haven’t, you just committed a moral wrong—lying!) The truth is we are all fallen. While we hate the evil done by others, we rarely notice the evil we do. We may call our political opponents hypocrites, but we don’t even live up to our own standards much less God’s. None of us are perfect. We are all guilty of something.

It’s only when we admit our guilt can we fathom the liberating and eternal implications of Good Friday. That’s when the innocent and perfect God-man took the punishment you and I deserve on Himself so we could be forgiven of our moral wrongs and reconciled to God.

“Why do we need to be forgiven and reconciled to God?” you ask. “Can’t God just grade on a curve?”

No, because God is an infinitely just Being. If He didn’t punish moral wrongs, then He wouldn’t be the infinite standard of justice. We know this standard of justice exists because without it we couldn’t even recognize any of the injustice we complain about—anything wrong in our society or any evil that has been done to us personally. Injustice can’t exist unless justice exists, but justice can’t exist unless God exists. Without God as the moral standard every behavior would just be a matter of opinion—even murder, rape and child abuse!

Thankfully, God is also the infinite standard of love which compels Him to find a way to allow unjust people like you and me to go unpunished. He does that by punishing Jesus of Nazareth—who volunteers for the mission—in our place.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His live as ransom for many,” Jesus revealed (Mk. 10:45). Just before he went to the cross, Jesus also declared that there’s no greater love than “to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

On the original Good Friday 1,989 years ago, Jesus suffered and died not to turn us into nice people but forgiven people. Jesus isn’t merely a moral example like other religious leaders; Jesus is our substitute. Since we’ve already committed moral crimes, we can’t work our way to God by being a “good person”. Jesus was that perfectly good person in our place. He’s done all the work for us and offers His life for ours as a gift. When you accept His gift, you are not only forgiven but given the righteousness of Christ. You are a new creation adopted into the family of God by grace, apart from works (2 Cor. 5:17-21, Eph. 2:8).

Without grace we will each get justice. If you think about your life and every hidden thing you’ve ever done, do you really want justice from God? Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve. The only way to avoid justice is to accept the grace Jesus provides by putting your trust in Him.

Accepting the sacrifice Jesus made on Good Friday liberates you from your past, present and future wrongs by making forgiveness and eternal life possible (John 3:16). That’s why Good Friday is truly “Good”. In fact, it’s the best news ever.

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

3. Are Miracles Possible?, CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the “Good Shepherd” and “Messiah” is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call “Easter.

Think I’m talking about Jesus?

Nope. I’m talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it’s simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn’t the real date of Christ’s birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called “Good Shepherd” or “Messiah.” Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his “resurrection” a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians….rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn’t the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such “dying and rising gods” existed before Christ,[1] here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way…to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it’s absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I’m actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It’s a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn’t negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn’t mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there’s no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don’t celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus’ tomb by saying: He is risen!

Notes:

[1] Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, “The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

D.O.U.B.T.S.: An Evidential Filter For Miracle Claims

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When it comes to miracles, Christians are often accused of special pleading. We’re quick to accept Christian miracle claims, but we suddenly turn into Richard Dawkins when it comes to miracle claims made by other religions. Why should skeptics start investigating the resurrection of Jesus when we don’t give other miracles the time of day? The truth is that there are dozens of different religions and thousands of miraculous claims out there. So how can the Christian hope to use miracles as an argument for their faith?

But the fact that there are miracle claims in other religions doesn’t require us to dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Nor is it necessary for us to be haplessly credulous about all historical miracle claims. There’s a middle way. Before examining miracle claims in detail, we can and should run them through a religiously-neutral evidential filter. Failure to pass through such a filter wouldn’t necessarily prove that the miracle didn’t occur, but it does give us reasons to doubt it. From there we can move on to more promising candidates and not waste our time.

So what filter do I have in mind? Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore. DOUBTS is a backronym because Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor, and well, teachers can’t resist making backronyms. McGrew has co-written the chapter on The Argument from Miracles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, as well as the entry for Miracles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so he’s a bit of a subject matter expert here. Let’s take a look at his filter.

D – DISTANT EVENTS

For starters, the D in DOUBTS stands for distant events. When the first report of a miracle is made only at a significant distance from the alleged event, we have reasons to doubt. So for example, a 2nd-century Greek writer named Philostratus reports that Apollonius of Tyana worked all kinds of wonders. The problem is that many of these wonders often allegedly happened in India, while Philostratus was writing in Greece some 3500 miles away. This is like that socially awkward guy who claims he’s dating a really hot girl who no one has seen from Canada. We have reason to be skeptical.

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

The O in DOUBTS stands for opinions already established. When miracles confirm or affirm established opinions and prejudices, we have some reasons to be skeptical. So for example, we have reason to doubt Brigham Young’s claim that Joseph Smith walked house-to-house healing a large group of his followers from malaria while living in Illinois. Young was Smith’s predecessor and had already recognized him as God’s special prophet. There are few details in the reports, and the people who preserved them weren’t initially suspicious. They might have credulously latched onto any flimsy claim made about Smith.

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

Next up is U – uncertain events. Granting that the event really happened, if it can be explained without implausibility that it was a natural event, we have reasons to be skeptical. If certain saints were said to levitate but clever illusionists can replicate this trick, chances are it wasn’t a miracle. Or for another example, the Talmud tells us about Honi the Circle Drawer. When rain did not come well into the winter, Honi drew a circle in the dust and sat inside it. He then told God that he would not move until it rained. And what do you know–it began to rain. Yet I think we’re all pretty experienced with rain and how it comes and passes. While this could be a miraculous answer to prayer, this also could’ve just been a coincidence and a fully natural occurrence. It’s an uncertain event and nothing on the same level as, say, someone being raised from the dead.

B – BELATED REPORTS

Moving on to B – belated reports. When the first report of a said miracle comes long after the event, we have some serious reasons to be skeptical. Let’s go back to our buddy Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus wrote his biography 100 years after Apollonius was dead. That’s obviously a long time and any alleged eyewitnesses would’ve long been dead. Or we have the resurrection stories about St. Nicolas. Reportedly there was a horrible famine, an evil butcher lured three children into his house, killed them and pickled them. This baddy was planning to try and pass them off as cured ham. Gross stuff. Saint Nicolas saw through this scheme and allegedly resurrected the kids by making the sign of the cross. The problem is this story was first circulated in Medieval times, hundreds of years after St. Nick was dead.

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

Let’s now move on to the T in the DOUBTS filter – Trival miracles. These would be reports of miracles that are unconnected to any significant purpose. They make no real difference to our lives. The basic idea is captured by the Roman poet Horace when he wrote: “Let a god not intervene unless it’s a knot worthy of a god’s untying.” You’ll often hear skeptics ask crazy things like: “well, if I told you that I have a friend who flew around the room by flapping his arms, died, rose again and turned my sofa into a donkey all in one evening, would you believe me?” Well, why would God be behind something like that? What deep questions about our destiny does this answer, or what striking doctrines would this confirm? Even if such a story happened, what claim does this supposed miracle make on my life? At the most, this flying man might cause me to conclude that the world is a stranger place than I initially imagined. Such an event serves no significant purpose.

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

Finally, we’ve reached the S in the DOUBTS filter. The S stands for self-serving miracle claims. When a supposed miracle serves obvious human motivations like sex, political power, greed, a lust for fame then there’s a huge reason to doubt such a miracle claim. Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba allegedly miraculously manifested clocks and watches but was accused of sexual abuse, money laundering, among other things. The Mormon founder Joseph Smith had ambitions to be the President of the United States and married over 40 different women. There are reasons to think there’s something fishy going on with his so-called revelations.

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

Granted, this takes away the coolness of the backronym but I’d add vague reports to the criteria. So for example, after apostatizing from the Mormon church and denying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman named Sister Armstrong who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse says that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to “animal magnetism” and not directly associated with God. But that’s all we have is something rather brief in her biography, there’s not a lot of details in the report. We’d have to know a lot more about what was wrong with the old woman, why she was bedridden, and what Smith did to believe it was a genuine miracle. It’s a vague report.

I think this is where we need to be careful as Christians, too. If we just rely on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to carry the load for our resurrection apologetic, we give vague evidence that isn’t detailed enough to warrant justified belief. Brief and confusing episodes are arguably compatible with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as I’ve argued here. We need the detailed, multisensory, time-extended experiences that we read about in the Gospels to make a strong case.

IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WORTHY OF OUR INVESTIGATION?

Remember that any miracle claim that fails on one or more of these criteria might still be true, but these give us a reasonable basis to not investigate them. I’d argue that the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t run afoul of any of the criteria. Without the aid of a miracle, crucified and buried dead men tend to stay dead. It’s not an uncertain event. The resurrection was proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem, within weeks after the crucifixion. The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified (Galatians 2:1,9) even when the church came under heavy persecution. (Acts 7, 12)

For the disciples to preach this so soon after Jesus’ execution that their religious leaders set up was to invite the same type of persecution. They could have waited until things calmed down. But they did not. Peter shifted from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming his resurrection just 50 days after Jesus was murdered. (Acts 2:22-24). The enemies of Christianity had the means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the story. Jesus claimed that he was the Giver of eternal life, so there’s nothing trivial about this claim.

For more details, see this video:

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

The skeptic might then ask: aren’t these criteria then a bit self-serving for Christians? As a believer, Dr. McGrew obviously believes the resurrection passes this filter. So isn’t this an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? For those of you who don’t know, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is where one cherry-picks a data cluster to suit your argument, or finds a pattern to fit a presumption. I don’t believe that’s the case here.

For starters, this criteria cuts against miracle claims that I’d accept. Since I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, I accept that Balaam’s donkey spoke. But I am not asking a skeptic to start their historical investigation there and I think they’re not unreasonable if they’re skeptical that such an event happened. Remember that these criteria are religiously neutral. They’re obviously sensible and keep one from wasting their time chasing after unpromising claims. Each criteria reduces the probability that a genuine miracle occurred, so a skeptic should like them. If one wants to add to this criteria, I’m all ears. I’d personally add that in the case of modern miracles where the person is still alive, medical data would be something I’d like to see.

These criteria should be embraced by the skeptic because it gives them the opportunity to say that they’re not dogmatically rejecting all miracle claims out of hand. I hope this helps show that Christians aren’t necessarily guilty of special pleading. Maybe we reject miracle claims in other religions because they’re often poorly attested.

The religion of the Force (book excerpt)

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.15″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.15″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.15.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

By Frank Turek and Frank Zachary Turek

The Star Wars series comprises eleven wonderful movies (some more wonderful than others) that, by design, are infused with overtly religious issues.

George Lucas said, “I put the Force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system.”

He admits that he wants to get young people to at least think about the big questions in life: “Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God? Just getting young people to think at that level is what I’ve been trying to do in the films.”

Not bad for Hollywood! But what kind of answers do the movies provide to viewers, and how do they compare to Christianity?

Lucas claims he’s not trying to direct viewers to definite answers. “What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.”[1]

Of course, it was unavoidable that his movie would depict a specific kind of worldview with its own view of god. The Force isn’t a Christian view of God. The god of Star Wars is closest to the god of pantheism — it is omnipresent and binds the universe together, but the Force makes no moral demands on its users.

Moral demands are, of course, part of Christianity, which often uses the same light-versus-darkness language found in Star Wars. God calls us to be in the light, as He is (1 John 1:7). Those who are in sin are depicted as being in darkness, while those who have accepted Christ as their Savior are in the light of the Lord. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes:

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:8–11

This idea of affiliating oneself with the light separates Christianity from any type of Force-based religion in a big way. The Force itself is quite clearly neutral — equally accessible to both sides and not preferring one over the other. Since the Force is not personal, it can’t command anyone to do good with its power.

In this way, pantheism is a lot like atheism. Whether you call nature “the Force” or simply matter and energy, you have no grounds for objective morality. Impersonal nature has no authority or capacity to tell you or anyone what to do.

Yet there is morality throughout the Star Wars series. Although the Force is technically neutral, George Lucas admits Star Wars is a “morality play.” In fact, virtually all good stories, including all superhero movies, are morality plays. There are always good guys and bad guys. Evil always needs to be defeated, which presupposes that there is an objective standard of good we ought to follow. An objective standard of good that all humans are obligated to follow can only exist if a personal God exists.

Since the Star Wars universe doesn’t have a personal God, how is morality justified in the movies? It isn’t. But that’s OK. They’re movies. Not everything has to be justified or make sense. The Force, like Harry Potter’s magic, isn’t meant to be grounded in reality. It’s science-fiction. Just like we don’t see people flying on broomsticks, we don’t see people wielding lightsabers or moving spaceships around with their minds.

While Lucas claims the Force is morally neutral, the audience isn’t. Because God has written the Moral Law on our hearts, we intuitively and immediately know that the Jedi are the heroes of the story and that the light side is morally better than the dark side.

The repeated goal of “balance” in the Force is another difference between the Force of Star Wars and the God of Christianity. “The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side,” said George Lucas. “Those sides are designed around compassion and greed — we all have those two sides of us — and we have to make sure that those two sides of us are in balance.”

This is really an odd statement to make.[2] Do we really want a “balance” between compassion and greed or between other forms of good and evil? Can you imagine your grandma telling you that as long as you do just as many nice things to the little boy next door, you can do all the bad things to him you want? Christians (and all people) should be fighting to eradicate evil completely, not balance it with good.

Furthermore, contrary to the Force of Star Wars, God and Satan are not “in balance,” as if they are equal and opposite forces. As we saw in the introduction, God is the one sovereign power, and all other creatures derive their power from Him. Just as evil cannot exist without good, Satan cannot exist without God. Neither can the angels and demons. Neither can we.

C. S. Lewis put it well, “Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”[3]

The Christian concept of faith is also different from the religion of the Force. In Star Wars,faith means not trusting your senses, but your feelings. It’s why Obi-Wan prompted Luke to turn off his targeting computer and trust his feelings.

Christianity is exactly the opposite. Faith is trusting in what you have good reasons to believe is true, and the primary way you get those reasons is by using your senses. Once you’ve discovered those reasons, you don’t trust your feelings when they contradict the facts. Feelings are fickle and subject to changing emotions. Feelings change, but facts don’t.

In Star Wars, the more faith you have, the more power you have. That’s why Yoda can lift the spaceship out of the mud on Dagobah while Luke cannot. But that’s not the way the real world works.

Imagine you and your friend get on a flight to Hawaii. If you totally trust the pilots but your friend is scared to death (your faith is strong but his is weak), does that mean you’ll get there but he’ll crash? Of course not. Once he’s on the plane, the strength of his faith isn’t the issue. The skill of the pilots is. It’s the same in Christianity. It’s not the amount of faith that has power — the faith of a mustard seed is enough. Instead, power lies in who you put your faith in. Jesus, not humanity, is the source of our power.

Taken from Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek and Zach Turek. Copyright ©2022. Used by permission of NavPress. All rights reserved. Represented by Tyndale House Publishers, a Division of Tyndale House Ministries.

Notes

[1] These quotes are from an interview Bill Moyers conducted with George Lucas in 1999, the transcripts of which are available here and here.

[2] Some may claim that by “balance” Lucas means the moderation between extremes that pantheists often advocate (signified by the yin and yang symbol). But if that’s the case, why would he claim we should want compassion and greed to be in balance?

[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1952), 50–51.

The Big Bang and Friends of the World

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a “friend of the world” because the world is God’s enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the “atheistic theory” of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let’s examine what actually concerns James in his letter.

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James’ letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

“…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest.

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us “friends of the world” in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us “friends of the world” and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology?

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the big bang theory is about the furthest from a naturalistic theory as they come. It has so many strong theistic implications that naturalists have tried for over a century to undermine it and have only in recent decades finally come to accept it as a community. But that acceptance is reluctant and is often accompanied by failed attempts to weasel out of the absolute beginning and exquisite fine-tuning implied by this rapid expansion event. The big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside of space and time, is mind-blowingly intelligent and powerful, and caused the creation of this universe out of literally no thing (creatio ex nihilo) for His purposes. The big bang creation event simultaneously provides powerful evidence for Christian theism and against naturalism.

It is not the science of big bang cosmology that made big bang cosmology so reprehensible to naturalists; it was the theistic and thus moral implications. The world does hate all Christians, whether those Christians believe that the big bang was the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 or if they do not. The world hates us not because we followed the evidence where it leads, but the world hates us because of where (or more accurately, to Whom) the evidence leads. There is no way that big bang cosmology allows someone to justify their evil desires; in fact, it does the exact opposite, and that is why it was so vehemently opposed by atheists for so long.

The fact that the naturalistic enemies of big bang cosmology have been compelled by the continually increasing evidence for the big bang to accept that it describes how our universe came into existence provides powerful evidence of its truth. It does so just as Jesus’ empty tomb is strongly evidenced by the fact that Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and Pharisees) were compelled by the evidence to accept that His tomb was empty. If “enemy attestation” provides powerful evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty, then it also provides powerful evidence that the big bang occurred (see Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology).

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul affirms that unbelievers have access to the same data of nature as Christians do. As a result, unbelievers and Christians will believe some of the same things about the creation. Paul is adamant that nature is so clear in its revelation that unbelievers are, in fact, without excuse in their denial of God. When unbelievers discover and features of creation, no doubt those features will point to their Creator. This is exactly what is going on when believers and unbelievers examine the evidence for the big bang. The world hates Christians because we do not share and we even condemn their evil desires and actions. And the world hates big bang cosmology because they know that they stand condemned, without excuse, by the images they witness through the lenses of their telescopes.

The Foundation for Morality

But despite that strong testimony of creation to God as the Creator, many Christians still insist that big bang cosmology is a naturalistic theory. The concern is that it does away with God as an objective, moral foundation for society, and, from their view, the moral degradation that we see in culture (see my previous articles “Compromising the Kingdom” and “Unrecognized Agreement and Unity“) is a result of a culture that has accepted big bang cosmology and used it as an excuse to do away with God. But because big bang cosmology is no friend of naturalism, it should not be rejected on the false grounds that it is such a friend to the naturalist and a morally debauched society.

As mentioned above, it is true that many naturalists, skeptics, and unbelievers hold to big bang cosmology, but it is the non-theistic philosophies that have opened our culture to the moral decay that we see. God is the foundation for objective morality. God is the source of the Image of God found in all humans. And the Image of God is the foundation of humans’ intrinsic value, free agency, and moral culpability (see my posts “Why Is The Image of God So Important?” and “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“). Not only have Christians who affirm big bang cosmology held tightly to the very Foundation (God) of objective morality and the Image of God, they have hard, scientific evidence of the existence of that Foundation via big bang cosmology (again, Romans 1, in action).

Conclusion

The idea that Christians, who accept the evidence God has provided for how and when He created the world, have somehow become or want to become friends with the world is misguided. Anyone who makes this accusation against a fellow Christian simply does not understand the theistic implications of big bang theory nor do they recognize that atheists saw those implications and resisted because of those implications, yet they were eventually compelled by the evidence that God has provided to us by His fully reliable actions (creation) to accept it. Even if one does not agree that the creation testifies to the big bang creation event, they cannot honestly continue to claim that the big bang is a naturalistic, anti-God theory.

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

As Christians, we are told to always be ready to give an answer for our faith. But for many of us, the opportunity seldom arises. In fact, by and large, it seems we are faced with apathy and indifference. Struggling to get past this with someone – to get them to actually think about the Christian message – requires the apologist to first deal with the source of the apathy.

One common source, in my experience, is what can be called the Santa Factor. This is the belief that Christians are simply deluding themselves when they believe in a God who will “deliver presents” to them when they die. Talking to skeptics about the rewards God has in store for those who place their trust in Him has little impact. It seems as real to them as the prospect of Santa leaving presents under their tree.

I had this confirmed recently in a conversation with an unbeliever. Seeing her indifference, I told her I felt like I was trying to talk to her about what presents she was hoping for from Santa, while she was just hanging back, secretly laughing at the absurdity of the whole concept. “It’s like I’m trying to list the reasons that there is a North Pole and flying reindeer,” I said, “and you are just politely nodding and wondering why so many people believe this … nonsense.” I asked her whether that was close to what she thought, and her reply was a candid “yes.” She thought the analogy to Santa was a perfect one, she said, one that captured her feelings in a very precise way.

Once this mindset is made clear, it’s easy to understand why my arguments gain no traction. Despite the soundness of the logic used in building my case for Christianity, to the unbeliever, I might as well be trying to explain how elves could conceivably build toys or how reindeer might possess gravity-altering organs. Since there are many reasons to believe that there is no Santa, and no reasons to believe the contrary, that conversation ends before it begins.

I have, as yet, found no sure-fire way to overcome this Santa Factor. I’d be interested to hear from any apologists who have. I do believe there is a necessary first step, however, and that is to show the skeptic that the Santa Factor is actually a variant of the “straw man” fallacy. Setting up a straw man involves defining the other side’s argument in an unfair or misleading way, and then concluding that you have the better argument when you knock down this “straw man.” When skeptics think of Christianity, they often picture a combination of strange images – Father Time with his flowing white beard, angels dancing on the heads of pins, virgin births, cannibalism, and strange “miracles.” A jumble of such images leaves the skeptic feeling comfortable rejecting the whole of Christianity as based on primitive superstitions and beliefs. Like the Santa myth, these beliefs might bring some comfort, and they’re great for tradition and ritual, but they are not really true. It’s all just a myth, based largely on “faith,” which translates roughly in their view to “wishful thinking.”

So, with that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the analogy. Santa, of course, is the supposed source of the gifts found under Christmas trees every Christmas morning. This explanation works for small children – giving them a wonderful period of anticipation and their parents a lever for a bit of behavior modification as kids struggle to remain on the “nice” list – but a moment’s reflection as a child matures would reveal that no one person could possibly build and deliver an endless stream of worldwide gifts. Not to mention keeping straight who gets what.

But considering the issue more critically, discovering that there is no Santa is not cause for concluding that there are no gifts under the tree, or that they appeared on their own. No, logic dictates that someone put the gifts there, someone with knowledge of the child, access to the home, and knowledge of the child’s wish list.

We too have “presents under our tree” that cry out for explanation. After all, we live in a universe, and on a planet, that are fine-tuned to support life. Life emerged on this planet at some point in the past and some of that life became conscious and intelligent. With that consciousness and intelligence, we can perceive and appreciate beauty and can argue about right and wrong, assuming as we do that there is a thing called morality that exists and should guide us. All these things need to be explained, and blithely concluding that God can’t be that explanation is not a rational move. Instead, the skeptic should embark upon an examination of the possible alternatives available through the use of thought and reason. Which worldview has a better explanation for all of this? Atheistic naturalism may have made sense in Darwin’s day when the universe was thought to be infinite in duration and DNA was not even suspected as the reason life displays such ordered variation. But today? Is it really plausible to assume that all the magnificence we see around us just happened on its own, with no guiding hand?

Consider: astrophysicists tell us that the universe arose from nothing 14 billion years ago. This means the universe, and time itself began to exist. But since all things that come into being require an adequate source, logic supports the conclusion that an intelligent, powerful, and transcendent being set it all in motion. Biologists today seek to make sense of the tremendous body of information that is encoded in DNA. The billions of lines of what is akin to computer code direct the construction of all life on this planet and understanding how to work with it has brought remarkable benefits to humanity. But wherever we find information, we must, of course, conclude that an intelligent source is at work. There are countless other questions that need an answer: how can the atheist explain the origin of life? If even the simplest form of cellular life contains millions of lines of DNA code, believing that it magically assembled itself from inert matter is, well, just as difficult to swallow as Santa making it down the chimney. The list of questions continues: from where does human intelligence come? How is it that inert matter became conscious and self-aware? Why do we have free will? If the universe determines all outcomes, as the secularist believes, then the free will we all intuitively recognize we possess is simply an illusion.

In the end, it really does take more blind – uncritical -faith to accept the secular view. The Christian worldview, by contrast, holds that an infinite, personal, and loving God created this universe, and us, for a purpose, and then revealed Himself to us in history. He did this in a way that provided evidence, both from the study of nature and from the personal testimony of witnesses who were so sure of what they saw and experienced – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – that they suffered martyrdom rather than deny it. (Contrasting the two worldviews in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but the case is well made here and here.)

Will this overcome the Santa Factor? It should if the skeptic really gives it a fair hearing. But that of course depends on the skeptic and how open he is to seeing through his little game of make-believe.